- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 116677 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MILAN PATIL S/O. PRABHAKAR PATIL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHARATHI G.BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BHAGYASHREE LAGAMAVVA SUGAR LTD., BEKKERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. AMARSINH, S/O. LATE VASANTRAO PATIL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEKKERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI -591 317. 2. SRI. SHIVARAJ S/O. PRATAPRAO PATIL, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIPRASAD J.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVIRAJ C.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2019 IN O.S.NO.81/12 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG ON IA'S FILED U/O.16 RULE 1 TO 4 OF CPC FOR SUMMONING THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE CHIKKODI, ANOTHER APPLICATION U/O.7 RULE 14 OF CPC FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF AND TO MARK THE SAME ONE MORE APPLICATION U/O.18 RULE 17 OF Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.23 14:25:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 CPC FOR RECALLING THE WITNESS AND ANOTHER APPLICATION U/S.151 OF CPC FOR REPOENING AND FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG TO PASS THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.81/2012 PENDING BEFORE IT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT ANY DELAY BASED ON TEH MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by Defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the trial court. By the said order, after hearing both parties, the trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff seeking issuance of a witness summons to the Tahasildar. The summons was sought for the production of the original varadi submitted by Siddagouda M. Patil during the process of mutating the name of his grandson-Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule properties. The court also directed the production of the original ‘U’ notice bearing the signature of Siddagouda M. Patil. Aggrieved by this order, Defendant No.1 has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 2. The primary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 is that the order passed by this court is misinterpreted by the learned Judge. She would point out that the plaintiff and the defendants in support of their claim have let in oral and documentary evidence extensively and respective counsel have cross-examined the parties and when the matter was substantially heard and posted for judgment, the plaintiff had made a feeble attempt by filing these applications seeking witness summons to Tahasildar. She would contend that the plaintiff has filed these applications only to drag on the matter and therefore, she would request this court to set aside the order under challenge. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in the case of RABIYA BI KASSIM M. VS COUNTRY-WIDE CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED, BANGALORE reported in LAWS(KAR) 2004 4 11. Citing this judgment, she would point out that, once the matter is reserved, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applications. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff has taken this court through the averments made in the written statement. Referring to paragraph 6 of the written statement, he would point out that defendant No.1 on receipt of summons has seriously disputed the suit agreement. Defendant No.1 has gone to the extent of denying the very signature of Siddagouda M.Patil and has pleaded that this agreement is fraudulent and concocted document. Defendant No.1 has also disputed his signature on the suit agreement dated 03.10.2000. 4. Referring to these averments, he would point out that once a plea of fraud and concoction is averred in the written statement, defendant No.1 is required to substantiate by leading rebuttal evidence. He would therefore, point out that by way of amended caution, since the burden is on the plaintiff to prove due execution of the agreement, respondent/plaintiff having traced out some revenue records where Siddagouda M.Patil had signed a varadi and the same is found in the original revenue - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 record, this recourse is adopted to seek witness summons to the jurisdictional Tahasildar. Therefore, he would request this court not to grant any indulgence. 5. The respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract based on an agreement of sale dated 03.10.2000. Defendant No.1 seriously disputing this agreement. Defendant No.1 claims that his grandfather Siddagouda M.Patil has never executed suit agreement and passing of earnest money is also seriously disputed. At paragraph 6 of the written statement, defendant No.1 has specifically pleaded that this agreement is concocted and fraudulent document. 6. The present writ petition is filed by Defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the trial court. By the said order, after hearing both parties, the trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff seeking issuance of a witness summons to the Tahasildar. The summons was sought for the production of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 the original varadi submitted by Siddagouda M. Patil during the process of mutating the name of his grandson-Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule properties. The court also directed the production of the original ‘U’ notice bearing the signature of Siddagouda M. Patil. Aggrieved by this order, Defendant No.1 has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 7. In a suit for specific performance, where the plaintiff seeks enforcement of a contract pertaining to immovable property, the evidentiary burden upon the plaintiff is considerably high, particularly when the execution of the suit agreement itself is under serious dispute. Once a plea of fraud and fabrication is raised, the plaintiff is required not only to prove the existence of the agreement but must also satisfactorily demonstrate that the signature found on the agreement was indeed affixed by the executant, here, Siddagouda M. Patil. In the present case, although there appears to be some degree of laxity on the part of the plaintiff in promptly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 substantiating this aspect, it is equally true that Defendant No.1, in rebuttal, has failed to produce any admitted signature of Siddagouda M. Patil for effective comparison. 8. In this context, the trial court, while exercising its discretion, permitted the plaintiff to lead further evidence, keeping in view the seriousness of the dispute and the rights involved in immovable property. The plaintiff, having recently traced relevant revenue records, has invoked the provisions of Order XVI of the CPC and sought the issuance of a witness summons to the jurisdictional Tahasildar to produce the original varadi and ‘U’ notice bearing the signature of Siddagouda M. Patil. These documents, if produced, may be crucial in verifying the authenticity of the signature and thereby the execution of the agreement. 9. Importantly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of W.P. No.112203/2019, had made a categorical observation that, in the event the plaintiff is able to place on record any admitted signature of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 Siddagouda M. Patil, his application for further evidence may be reconsidered. The present attempt by the plaintiff, therefore, finds support from that very observation. Given this context, and in the interest of justice, the trial court exercised judicial discretion and granted indulgence to the plaintiff. Though the matter is now posted for judgment, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not warranted unless the impugned order suffers from manifest perversity, which is not evident in this case. 10. Nevertheless, considering the stage at which this application has been filed after the conclusion of trial, this Court finds it appropriate to direct that such indulgence should be conditional. Accordingly, while the writ petition stands dismissed, the order allowing the issuance of a witness summons shall be subject to the plaintiff depositing a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to Defendant No.1 on the next date of hearing. All rival contentions are kept open. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6441 WP No. 116677 of 2019 11. It is also clarified that Defendant No.1 shall be at liberty to place on record any admitted signature of Siddagouda M. Patil, should such evidence be available, and subject to its credibility and relevance. Given that the suit is of the year 2012, the learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with expeditious disposal of the suit and conclude the same within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. The plaintiff shall ensure that he concludes the additional evidence without any undue delay, and similarly, Defendant No.1 shall cooperate and, if required, lead any rebuttal evidence at the earliest. Both parties shall endeavor to avoid any further delay in the interest of justice and early adjudication of the rights in dispute. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11